1.2 In terms of thinking: Under the guidance of the teacher Ss can create an ENV model and can use it to select the information for their writing

Materials I am going to use (with a link to specific materials if possible): SMART notebook material “Astrologer”, the text from the course book “Upstream Beginner A1+” “Start Signs and food”, p.49.

Tasks I am going to use (with a link to specific tasks if possible): a worksheet “You are a famous astrologer”.

2. Lesson / task description – after

Procedures (how we worked: time, organisation, etc.)

On Monday, September 9 the same lesson was conducted in four groups (13-14 students in each).

Introduction (time: 3 min.): At the beginning of the lesson Ss were asked to imagine that they are famous astrologers (slide 1 in SMART notebook document “Astrologer”) We discussed who an astrologer is and what his job is about.

Ls’ response: looks at stars/at the sky/comets, gives advice.

Pre-reading task 1 (time: 5 min.): Then Ss were told that they had been given a special task but before they get it they had to do one task on matching words with definitions (slide 2 in SMART notebook document “Astrologer”). This task was given to implicitly translate unknown words from the task.

Ls’ response: Ss had some minutes to look at the smart board and then one by one came up to the screen and dragged the words into appropriate cells. When the task was done, the answers were checked by clicking the “CHECK” button. Then students were asked to translate the words (using visual hints below the task and the definitions). When Ss couldn’t translate the words, I myself did it.

Task for an astrologer (time: 7 min.): After that Ss were given the worksheets “You are a famous astrologer”. They were asked to read the first task and they had to answer the following question “What information do we need to do the task?”

The chef of the restaurant ”The Four Elements”, Mr Smith, has asked you to give recommendations to the visitors about four main dishes the restaurant serves:

Write a letter to Mr Smith (60-80 words) and tell him what dish is the best for water signs, earth signs, fire signs, and air signs.

Ls’ response: When Ss finished reading they were asked what they had to do. Ss hesitated. Thus, their attention was drawn to the last sentence of the task. By splitting the sentence into parts Ss managed to define the task. Then I repeated the question “What information do we need to do the task?”. No clear answers were given, so I asked “Can we do this task right now?” Ss claimed that yes, they can. Several answers were given. I asked Ss whether we can rely on their ideas. Ss were sure that yes. Then I asked Ss whether we really knew what food preferences the star signs really have. Ss answered that no.

Pre-reading task 2 (time: 5 min.): Thus, Ss got the texts about star signs and their food preferences. Before reading to they had to do the matching task (slide 3 in SMART notebook document “Astrologer”). This task was given to implicitly translate unknown words from the task.

Ls’ response: Ss had some minutes to look at the smart board and then one by one came up to the screen and dragged the words into appropriate cells. When the task was done, the answers were checked by clicking the “CHECK” button. Then students were asked to translate the words (using the definitions). When Ss couldn’t translate the words, I did it myself.

Star signs and food (time: 5 min.): Ss were split into four groups and got the names of one of the four elements. Each group’s task was to read one bit of the text (one of the four elements) and to underline in the text the information about what type of the food their group sign like.

Ls’ response: When Ss finished reading their bits of text, I collected their answers on the screen. Ss came up with the following answers: water signs prefer comfort food, earth signs prefer expensive food, fire signs prefer hot and spicy food, air signs prefer light, quick and easy food. Some Ss tried to answer the question by giving the examples of food the signs like. I tried to explain to them that what I needed was not examples but the general preferences.

Table 2 (time: 15 min.): Ss were asked to look at task 2 in their worksheets:

Type of food

water

earth

fire

air

Then, to start with the simplest, I copied the food preference of the fire signs (“hot and spicy”) into the cell under the title “fire”. Then I asked Ss what “hot and spicy” is. Ss hesitated, so I provided several other variants in Russian to extend the examples range (sweet, sour, salty, etc.) Ss responded that this is about taste. The name of the first parameter was written down. Then I asked Ss what taste water signs like. Ss answered “comfort food” . I asked them whether “comfort food is a taste”. Ss answered that it wasn’t. I asked Ss to look at the examples of food the water signs like. Ss gave different answers (sugary, tasteless, salty, etc.) All this was written down. In the same way the rest of the information about other signs was collected and put down.

Then I copied the food preference of the earth signs (“expensive”) into the cell under the title “earth” row two. I asked Ss what expensive/not expensive is about. Ss replied that this is about price. The name of the second parameter was written down. Then I asked Ss what the price of water signs food is. Ss gave different answers. But the majority agreed on “not expensive”. To one of the groups the word “cheap” was introduced. In the same way the rest of the information about other signs was collected and put down.

In the same way each of the parameters was named: comfort food à function of the food/why do we eat it?, lightà calories, quick à preparation time, easy à preparation. The examples of the filled in grids see attached in the “students’ worksheets” folder.

3. Overall reflection on the lesson / task

Aim aspect (to what extent did we reach the aims?)

Speaking about linguistic aims new words were introduced and since Ss used them when we created the ENV model in task 2 one may conclude that they understood the meaning of every word. We didn’t start writing a letter of advice. Thus, this remained the aim of the following lesson.

Although we created an ENV model with Ss, we didn’t manage to use it when giving advice. This remained the aim of the following lesson.

Tasks & materials aspect

Generally speaking the lesson flow was very slow. I realised that the steps with matching words to their definitions took too much time and could be omitted of simplified (by giving words and their definitions to Ss at once). This I tried to do at my third lesson. This proved to be far more efficient since some of the Ss even finished grids in task 3.

Questions / conclusions for the future

After my lessons Renata Jonina shared her ideas about the lesson with me. I felt that something was missing in my lessons. Renata reminded me that TA lesson consists of three parts. The part that my lessons lacked was “creating the challenge” since my Ss didn’t accept the challenge. S didn’t feel the need for reading the text to give advice. Ss thought that they could do the task once the task was given. Thus, Ss really didn’t see the need to create the model and to use it. I had to simply give the texts as I planned.

Question: to what extent is it allowed to use mother tongue when working with the ENV model?

How to create the challenge and make SS accept it? My fear is that if I had created it, this would have resulted in one more lesson.

At the next lesson (Friday, September 13) we finished grids in task 2. Then the dishes in task 3 were analysed according to the parameters we had come up with at the first lesson. Then Ss chose the signs that fitted best each dish and started writing the letter of advice (see attached in the “students’ worksheets” folder).

Comments

General comments:To understand I think, we should take into account that this probably is the very first lesson in trying to do the activities in the new style. In general, I think the lesson should have been comfortable for both the students and the teacher (despite it seemed not always so). What were positive things? Good things – nice speed of the lesson, nice room for practicing some new vocabulary, overall precedures based on a dialogue with your students, also clarity of the tasks and expected results. Some of the things I really liked like the question of what information we need to make advice letter? Now some further suggestion with mapping of the things for further development.I have 2 main questions and some suggestions just to further direct the development.Question one – The ultimate challenge is to create the need to improve algorithm or thinking patterns we approach real-life tasks. I have the feeling that when you posed the question, you did not really create the grounds enough to set up this challenge. So, the task was done for the task’s sake rather then internalised by students. Contextualisation it seemed worked up to a point and might be improved (maybe there was some more personal problem or task they had to resolve, like in their other school-life or communication outside school matters). I understand, partly it was understandable, why it was difficult to do - there were the pressure of planned speed and the pressure of video-recording.Question two also concerns I think the same 2 pressures – the lesson planning was planned lineary and the teacher based more on the linear way of going from task to task rather then being prepared to react to students incentives and offer some challenges. So, it was difficult to understand if each subtask really posed enough challenge for students to work on. Some ideas about Invariants of the same precedures:1. Group-work could be used more (at the stage of giving features or putting them in the grid) 2. Students could proceed with with enlisting more than 6 categories at the end.3. Reflection to the algorythm could be gathered (its functions determined, etc)In your further planning, you could pay attention on 2 things:Setting right level of challenge at each substep;Better (closer to student needs) contextualisation and reach of their acceptance of the task.Some language stuff:(I would use) Cooking time not preparation timeTime of digestion( ease) instead of calories (calories refer to how much energy the food gives). Nutritional value.There is one more issue of a higher level, but this we may discuss during next meetings. Just to give you a slight touch of it - there is always a concern of working from students developing their models, rather than teaching them a new skill (like, using ENV). Again, I should say, it is positive to start because some thinking is better than no-thinking. In general, I think this is a rather nice beginning of the introducing of TA stuff at this level!